Montana Discussion Thread
- clifflandmark
- Posts: 904
- Joined: 13 Oct 2020 16:36
- Location: Urfa
- Contact:
Re: Montana Discussion Thread
I like tourist move in West.West is more touristic.It's good they're adding it now.these are something worth to see while driving. I would not want it for Texas or some southern states.
we can't drive in civil war museums in southern states etc. but we can drive around Glacier National park, Yosemite, Yellowstone.
What do Montana do? They sell trout ? Wooden stuff? I think Montana is a scenic place itself, rather than a industry-based state like TX.
(On the other hand, Effort and time of Team members should be balanced about touristic-industrial things.)
also, once plains started, there won't be many tourist moves.I guess our trucks will be loaded corn, chicken, meat in plains.
we can't drive in civil war museums in southern states etc. but we can drive around Glacier National park, Yosemite, Yellowstone.
What do Montana do? They sell trout ? Wooden stuff? I think Montana is a scenic place itself, rather than a industry-based state like TX.
(On the other hand, Effort and time of Team members should be balanced about touristic-industrial things.)
also, once plains started, there won't be many tourist moves.I guess our trucks will be loaded corn, chicken, meat in plains.
-
- Posts: 4784
- Joined: 26 Sep 2019 20:14
Re: Montana Discussion Thread
I think tourism will continue to be a focus of ATS with industry taking a back seat. I could be wrong, though.
Seems like that is the kind of game we're getting: a tourism sim with trucks as the vehicle of exploration.
Seems like that is the kind of game we're getting: a tourism sim with trucks as the vehicle of exploration.
- clifflandmark
- Posts: 904
- Joined: 13 Oct 2020 16:36
- Location: Urfa
- Contact:
Re: Montana Discussion Thread
That would be an aggressive critism.they don't make the state's economy the way it isn't. We couldn't transport cow cattle from Long Island, could we? (I gave the example assuming there are no farms on long island) Imagine that tx and mt have the same number of industries. this would not be consistent.
Re: Montana Discussion Thread
Every state could offer such actually. Texas would be Big Ben National park. We'd need Presidio Texas as a marked town to make it valid though. But I'd definitely take TX-170 to TX-118 or even US-385 and then connect that all up with US-67 and US-90.clifflandmark wrote: ↑01 Jul 2022 17:36 I like tourist move in West.West is more touristic.It's good they're adding it now.these are something worth to see while driving. I would not want it for Texas or some southern states.
So far from the truth. You only say this because you don't get what you want. When your ideas don't make the game, the game is targeting other audiences is always the interpretation you give. I'm sure eventually, a few of your ideas will break thru. There is plenty of industry in the game. Plenty more to come. We get 1-2 tourist roads a game and that equals tourist is the focus? Roads as such is a bonus and gets that type of person more incentive to buy this or that dlc. Why not include 1 tourist road if it gets a bit of wow factor for that type of person that seeks them. Its like 5% of the entire road network of a new dlc. That doesn't equal back seat.seriousmods wrote: ↑01 Jul 2022 17:47 I think tourism will continue to be a focus of ATS with industry taking a back seat. I could be wrong, though.
My post are only thoughts and ideas. Don't assume it makes ATS.
Poll: Choose Next 2 ATS States
ATS Flatbed
ATS Special Transport
North American Agriculture
Poll: Out of Production Truck
Poll: Choose Next 2 ATS States
ATS Flatbed
ATS Special Transport
North American Agriculture
Poll: Out of Production Truck
-
- Posts: 4583
- Joined: 25 Sep 2018 12:32
- Location: Ontario, Canada
- Contact:
Re: Montana Discussion Thread
https://twitter.com/SCSsoftware/status/ ... 07/photo/1 a small tease they did
- Vinnie Terranova
- Posts: 5111
- Joined: 09 Nov 2017 10:24
- Location: Netherlands
Re: Montana Discussion Thread
Busses? No way. If we can drive busses in ATS, we not only want to drive them in National Parks, but also in big cities. Especially downtown... So, busses? No way.
Re: Montana Discussion Thread
@Vinnie Terranova The way I see them being implemented(if they go that route) would not be city transit busses, but rather the larger tour busses and interstate travel busses. They would visit the cities obviously, probably to pickup or drop off the travelers or tourists. city transit busses are unlikely though due to the way cities are laid out in ATS. You'll notice the two ingame bus companies' names fit this view. Those being Farland(iirc) and West Coast Tours.
A job might look like one of the below.
Tourists: Los Angeles - Los Angeles via Yosemite National Park (Deliver tourists to the scenic overlook trigger in Yosemite and then return)
Passengers: Portland - Denver (Deliver passengers between a depot in Portland and a depot in Denver)
A job might look like one of the below.
Tourists: Los Angeles - Los Angeles via Yosemite National Park (Deliver tourists to the scenic overlook trigger in Yosemite and then return)
Passengers: Portland - Denver (Deliver passengers between a depot in Portland and a depot in Denver)
Last edited by wolfedg on 01 Jul 2022 20:02, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Montana Discussion Thread
Maybe if they were tour buses that would focus on scenic areas and not stop at downtown bus terminals.
I think the reason national parks and other scenic but unnecessary roads are added is to showcase some of the natural beauty of the West and add a little fun to the map. This really isn't a new phenomenon; just look at Pacific Coast Highway, Montezuma's Castle, Grand Canyon Village, etc. Those are all tourist attractions that wouldn't typically be seen by truckers, and yet they were included with the earliest states. People who want to play seriously and keep to official truck routes can still do so, and the tourist areas don't have any higher quality than the rest of the map, so what's the problem with including them? It's just a game, relax.
I think the reason national parks and other scenic but unnecessary roads are added is to showcase some of the natural beauty of the West and add a little fun to the map. This really isn't a new phenomenon; just look at Pacific Coast Highway, Montezuma's Castle, Grand Canyon Village, etc. Those are all tourist attractions that wouldn't typically be seen by truckers, and yet they were included with the earliest states. People who want to play seriously and keep to official truck routes can still do so, and the tourist areas don't have any higher quality than the rest of the map, so what's the problem with including them? It's just a game, relax.
The Journeys of Zephyr of the American West
Handy maps and diagrams.
Furthermore, I consider that I-80 across Nevada must be redone next.
Handy maps and diagrams.
Furthermore, I consider that I-80 across Nevada must be redone next.
- Vinnie Terranova
- Posts: 5111
- Joined: 09 Nov 2017 10:24
- Location: Netherlands
Re: Montana Discussion Thread
I don't mind if busses are implemented in the game. Personally I won't drive busses, because the whole ATS world I can drive with my truck. But if other people want to play more seriously and driving trucks only on the official truck routes, yeah, then those people could drive busses to visit the roads where trucks are prohibited.
It's just that when I think about driving a bus, it would be nice to be able to drive downtown, and pick up passengers. But that's not quite possible in ATS due to the lack of cities with downtowns.
It's just that when I think about driving a bus, it would be nice to be able to drive downtown, and pick up passengers. But that's not quite possible in ATS due to the lack of cities with downtowns.
-
- Posts: 4784
- Joined: 26 Sep 2019 20:14
Re: Montana Discussion Thread
Flight, you honestly believe that if given the choice SCS would choose industry over scenery? Do you even play the game lol?flight50 wrote: ↑01 Jul 2022 18:00 So far from the truth. You only say this because you don't get what you want. When your ideas don't make the game, the game is targeting other audiences is always the interpretation you give. I'm sure eventually, a few of your ideas will break thru. There is plenty of industry in the game. Plenty more to come. We get 1-2 tourist roads a game and that equals tourist is the focus? Roads as such is a bonus and gets that type of person more incentive to buy this or that dlc. Why not include 1 tourist road if it gets a bit of wow factor for that type of person that seeks them. Its like 5% of the entire road network of a new dlc. That doesn't equal back seat.
The tourist roads aren't the point: I don't care if they are included or not. I'm talking about the whole map. Most of the businesses on the map, and pretty much all the warehouses are decorative.
We have decorative industrial parks. We have decorative factories, refineries even.
This is a new group of distribution centers in rebuilt Cali. Not one of these is deliverable. The old warehouse that probably dates back to ETS1 is.
[ external image ]
This is a second industrial center in rebuilt Cali. It, too, is not deliverable.
[ external image ]
This is a decorative factory in Idaho. It serves no purpose other than scenery.
[ external image ]
There are thousands of additional examples, good models that only serve as decoration--some of the best industrial models SCS has made tbh.
And when we get new blogs, they talk about things like water towers or just water or things that we can drive by and look at.
SCS isn't trying to make an industry-focused game. It's a scenery game with trucks. What I want is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things: SCS has to want to make more cargo and more diverse deliverable industrial buildings. You should know more than anyone that cargo doesn't get near the attention it should if they were truly focused on industry.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], LeGod7, ShadowScorpion_9 and 11 guests